B.C. Insider: Misery in Victoria neighbourhood resonates, pushes policy-makers
Good morning.
Imagine doing work you deeply feel you are meant to do, to make the world a better place by looking after the needs of others, some vulnerable, some not as much.
That's incredibly rewarding. Until you are confronted with a need so overwhelming, complex and sometimes dangerous that you are forced to consider the boundaries of your calling.
Last week, Globe reporter Nancy Macdonald introduced readers to Shawn Barden, the pastor at Victoria's Central Baptist Church. He ministers to some 700 people in a spot along Pandora Avenue that the church has occupied for 98 years.
But in the past decade, Pandora has become the epicentre of Victoria's struggle with the opioid crisis. Its sweeping, grassy boulevard became a convenient place for a tent encampment.
The ravages of fentanyl, the lives it either takes or hollows out and the public disorder and crime that follow in the wake of the drug, are on display just outside the church's doors.
Inside the church, the congregation has grappled with their Christian mission. The church has an outreach team handing out sandwiches and coffee, fresh produce and hot meals. But someone recently sneaked inside and smoked fentanyl in front of a room filled with toddlers. Last summer, a staff member was sucker-punched in a random attack. Shortly after, a man exposed himself to two children entering the church.
'Being among people at the margins of society is where churches thrive,' said Barden. 'But the needs of the people here have taxed our expertise, our ability to help.'
Barden is uncomfortable being at the centre of Macdonald's story. But the anguish he and his parishioners feel about the plight of the neighbourhood was echoed to Macdonald by many others she spoke to: the police officers who patrol the beat on The Block, as it's known; those that bought residences in the neighbourhood only to find their units unsellable because of the turmoil; business owners who can't afford the chaos and can't find workers to tolerate it if they could.
The story was written as part of Poisoned, the Globe's continuing series examining the opioid crisis, and the impact it has had on the country. Macdonald set out to find out what is lost when several blocks of a street effectively disappear from a city landscape, and what can cause so swift a change.
It was also intended to illustrate the damaging impact the crisis has wrought, not just in larger centres such as Toronto and Vancouver, and not only among those directly in the teeth of addiction.
It apparently hit its mark. The piece has generated more than 1,100 comments on the Globe's website. Data show readers spent far more time reading the story and sharing it than on average. They sent feedback from as far away as Fredericton, suggesting solutions and asking how they can help.
In a follow-up piece, Macdonald reported the City of Victoria is spending millions building supportive housing, a job that's supposed to be provincial jurisdiction. It has spent $11-million alone repairing damage caused by homeless encampments. Property taxes are going up to pay for it all.
Victoria Mayor Marianne Alto called the national attention generated by the Globe's story a 'watershed moment' for the city and Councillor Marg Gardiner blamed the provincial government for not assuming 'the responsibility for housing and health care for these desperate people.'
Ravi Kahlon, B.C. Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs, deflected criticism, saying the Globe had highlighted complex social issues playing out across North America.
He touted his government's record in providing housing, noting there were more than 40 homeless people living on Pandora Ave. six months ago – after supportive housing units opened, there are now 19.
Kahlon seemingly tried to point the finger back at Victoria: He said one of the biggest challenges the province faces is where to put new supportive housing – a debate that stretched out for years in Victoria.
The NDP were grilled about Pandora's problems in the legislature.
In the week since the story ran, the province had a news conference to announce a small program aimed at reducing robbery, shoplifting, vandalism and property damage. Another news conference is planned for todaythat will include the province's chief scientific adviser for psychiatry, toxic drugs and concurrent disorders.
But a solution to the problem will have to be a multi-faceted, multi-year, expensive effort. And the steps toward bold solutions – involuntary care, drug policy, bail reform among them – are moving incrementally and slowly.
This is the weekly British Columbia newsletter written by B.C. Editor Wendy Cox. If you're reading this on the web, or it was forwarded to you from someone else, you can sign up for it and all Globe newsletters here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
16 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
With Trump's budget bill looming, here's how U.S. foreign withholding tax works
Canadian investors may not be aware that when they earn income from a foreign investment, they may also be effectively paying a withholding tax to a foreign country. As countries cannot collect taxes from non-residents directly, most will hold back part of the income a foreign investor receives from a company incorporated in that country. 'It's just the simple way to make sure the government gets their tax,' says Karl Dennis, partner and national leader of the U.S. corporate tax team for KPMG in Canada. Now, a provision in U.S. tax legislation passed by the House of Representatives threatens to raise taxes on investors in Canada and in other countries that impose taxes, such as a digital services tax, that the U.S. deems unfair to U.S. corporations. Under section 899 of U.S. President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill, Canadians who hold U.S. securities or invest in U.S. companies through Canadian investment funds could see the rate of U.S. foreign withholding tax on dividends they receive rise significantly. At this point, cross-border tax experts have different interpretations of just how much the increase would be. Some understand the bill as increasing the rate of U.S. foreign withholding tax by a maximum of 20 percentage points, either to 35 per cent from the 15 per cent rate available under the Canada-U.S. tax treaty, or to 50 per cent from the 30 per cent statutory foreign withholding tax rate when a taxpayer is ineligible for the treaty rate. Others interpret the ceiling as 50 per cent, or a maximum of 20 percentage points above the statutory rate of 30 per cent, starting from the treaty rate of 15 per cent, where applicable. Tax experts say they're monitoring the progress of the bill and suggest the provision could be revised before its possible enactment. John Natale, head of tax, retirement and estate planning services, wealth, at Manulife Investment Management, says investors should speak with their financial advisors or tax advisors rather than sell U.S. investments solely because of the proposed legislation. 'Sometimes, people are eager or panic,' Mr. Natale says. Here's a brief overview of how U.S. withholding tax currently affects Canadian investors based on the types of investments and where those investments are held. (The tax implications for U.S. citizens who live in Canada aren't addressed in this article, as those investors would be treated differently.) Under the Canada-U.S. tax treaty, the U.S. imposes a withholding tax of 15 per cent on dividends paid from U.S. companies to Canadian investors, which is half the default rate of 30 per cent under U.S. tax law. To access the reduced treaty rate, a Canadian investor holding U.S. investments in a non-registered account needs to complete a U.S. W-8BEN form. The withholding tax applies to dividends but, in general, not to interest from bonds or savings accounts, or to capital gains realized on the sale of U.S. investments. (One exception is real estate: Canadians pay U.S. taxes on interest earned from U.S. rental property and on capital gains from selling U.S. real estate.) In a non-registered, taxable account, a Canadian investing directly in U.S. companies is subject to U.S. withholding tax on the dividends they receive. When a Canadian invests in a Canadian mutual fund or exchange-traded fund that invests in U.S. equities, the fund itself is the taxable entity in terms of U.S. withholding tax. The fund then distributes the foreign dividend income to the unitholder and reports the amount of foreign withholding tax. For example, a Canadian investor who is allocated $100 in U.S. dividends would receive $85, with the financial institution remitting $15 to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. The financial institution would then issue a tax slip – either a T3 or a T5 – reporting $100 in foreign dividends and $15 of foreign tax paid. The investor would then report the $100 dividend on their income tax return and claim a foreign tax credit for $15. Under the proposed U.S. tax bill, the withholding rate would increase by five percentage points for every year the foreign country continues to charge an 'unfair' tax. (Cross-border experts have different interpretations on whether the increases would max out at 35 per cent or 50 per cent, where a treaty rate of 15 per cent is available.) Josée Baillargeon, director of taxation policy at the Securities and Investment Management Association, says it's unclear whether any additional taxes imposed under section 899 above the treaty rate would be eligible for a foreign tax credit or a deduction from income in Canada. 'We're currently seeking clarification on this matter from the Canada Revenue Agency,' Ms. Baillargeon said in a statement sent by e-mail. The U.S. doesn't recognize the tax-deferred status of Canadian registered plans that aren't retirement accounts, such as the tax-free savings account (TFSA), the registered education savings plan (RESP), the registered disability savings plan (RDSP) and the first-home savings account (FHSA). That means Canadians who invest in U.S. companies or hold Canadian mutual funds and ETFs that invest in U.S. equities held in TFSAs and RESPs are subject to U.S. foreign withholding tax on dividends, just as they would be if they held those investments in a taxable account. However, as these plans are tax-sheltered accounts in Canada, the Canadian investor doesn't receive a tax slip reporting the foreign dividends and foreign withholding tax, nor can they claim the foreign tax credit in Canada to offset the withholding tax. That means the 15 per cent U.S. withholding tax is a net cost to the investor that can't be recovered. The U.S. does recognize RRSPs, RRIFs, life income retirement accounts (LIRAs) and life income funds (LIFs) as retirement accounts and tax-deferred accounts. That means Canadians who invest in U.S. companies, or who hold ETFs listed on a U.S. exchange that invest in U.S. equities, are exempt from U.S. withholding tax on the dividends they receive. Adam Seliski, partner, international tax and transaction services with EY Canada, says it's unclear whether retirement accounts would continue to have access to their exempt status if section 899 were enacted. 'That's something we're monitoring very closely,' Mr. Seliski says. Even under current rules, the retirement account exemption isn't available for Canadian investors who hold Canadian mutual funds and ETFs that invest in U.S. equities. Canadian U.S. equity funds held in retirement accounts are subject to U.S. withholding tax, and investors don't have access to a foreign tax credit to offset, representing a drag on fund performance. While there may be an advantage to holding a U.S. investment directly in a registered retirement account in terms of avoiding U.S. foreign withholding tax, Canadian investors who own U.S. assets must also consider annual Canadian foreign reporting obligations, U.S. estate tax implications, and the cost of currency conversion.
National Post
an hour ago
- National Post
In Quebec, opposition mounts against a pipeline project that doesn't exist
Article content OTTAWA — At Quebec's National Assembly and on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, pipelines have dominated the debates. The only issue? No projects involving the province are on the agenda. Article content 'I think there is a fixation on pipelines on (Prime Minister Mark) Carney's part at the moment, not on the part of Quebecers,' said Bloc Québécois MP and former Greenpeace activist Patrick Bonin. Article content Article content Article content Since taking office in May, Bonin has mentioned the pipeline issue more than 20 times in his speeches on the floor of the House of Commons. Article content Article content 'We will not allow the government to build a pipeline through Quebec,' he said on Monday. Article content According to Bonin, the prime minister is 'rolling out the red carpet for the oil companies' by meeting with some 20 CEOs in Calgary the day before his meeting with the premiers in Saskatoon and by hoping to speed up environmental assessments. Article content Since the election, Carney has spoken cautiously about 'conventional energy' infrastructure and has repeatedly stated that no decisions have been made at this stage regarding the major projects he wants to see come to fruition. Article content But he did take a step further on Wednesday, feeding Bonin's worst fears. Article content 'The consensus that's required includes a consensus with the Indigenous people. We will stand with Indigenous Canadians, we will build pipelines and energy infrastructure in this great country,' Carney said on the floor of the House of Commons. Article content Article content In Quebec, many politicians remain on the edge of their seats. Article content Article content 'Any pipeline project, any kind, is bad for the environment, bad for the economy, bad for Quebec,' said Ruba Ghazal, the Quebec solidaire House leader at the National Assembly. Article content 'If the premier doesn't want to completely shut the door on a pipeline project, can he at least ensure that environmental sovereignty is defended?' she asked. Article content 'The leader of Québec solidaire is getting excited about something that doesn't exist,' replied Legault. 'There is currently no project that is taking place in Quebec.'
National Post
an hour ago
- National Post
After former Leafs and Blue Jays players, CRA now goes after ex-Raptors star Norman Powell
OTTAWA — On Feb. 4, 2022, former Toronto Raptors star guard Norman Powell received two pieces of news that would have a major impact on his life. Article content The first was from his agent telling him that he was part of a blockbuster trade that sent him from the Portland Trail Blazers to the Los Angeles Clippers. Article content The second was from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) claiming over $1.2 million in additional income tax on 'inducements' paid by the Raptors in 2019 and 2020 to attract the star two-way guard to the surging Toronto team. Article content Article content Powell, who was part of the Raptors' 2019 championship team, is now appealing the CRA's decision in the Tax Court of Canada. Article content Article content Powell's faceoff with the tax agency is over the same issue as ex-Toronto Maple Leafs Patrick Marleau and John Tavares, namely that his nearly $7 million in signing inducements should be taxed at only 15 per cent and not at the top income tax bracket (over 50 per cent). Article content A key question for the court to determine is if the inducement offered by the Raptors Powell's contract to entice him to Toronto fits the definition of an 'inducement' under the U.S.-Canada treaty that sets the tax rate at 15 per cent. Article content The case, like Marleau and Tavares', could have a significant impact on how Canadian professional sports teams use signing bonuses or salary inducements as a tax incentive to attract foreign athletes to Canada instead of lower-taxed American organizations. Article content Powell's lawsuit argues that the millions in inducements he signed with the Raptors to attract him to Toronto are covered by provisions of a Canada-U.S. tax treaty which set the tax rate for an 'inducement to sign an agreement' at 15 per cent. Article content Article content 'The Toronto Raptors and the Appellant (Powell) both understood that the Inducement was a key component of the Appellant's decision to sign' with the Canadian team, reads the appeal. Article content Article content But, per Powell, the CRA disagreed. On Feb. 4, 2022, the agency issued notices of assessment to him for 2019 and 2020 that taxed his inducement payments at the ordinary federal and provincial income tax rates (likely over 50 per cent) instead of 15 per cent. Article content 'The Toronto Raptors agreed to pay the Inducement to entice the Appellant 'to sign an agreement relating to the performance of' his services as an 'athlete',' Powell wrote, saying that CRA's arguing otherwise is 'to distort the legal and economic reality' of his contract with the Raptors. Article content Powell objected to the CRA, which he says accepted his objections 'in full' on March 1, 2024. Article content But then to Powell's surprise, six days later the CRA issued a reassessment that once again considered his inducements to be taxable at the full federal and provincial tax rates instead of 15 per cent.
